Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 38640
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR, J
Manish Bunkar – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Surendra Kumar Choksey – Respondent
MCRC 28287/2024
Jitendra Kumar Sharma,
A good faith complaint to an authority does not constitute defamation under IPC Sections 499 and 500 if it lacks the necessary legal elements.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 499 and 500 - Criminal defamation - Petition filed to quash order taking cognizance for defamation against the petitioner. The court found that the Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind to the facts and law, leading to a lack of sufficient grounds for cognizance. The complaint did not disclose an offence under Sections 499 and 500, as the allegations were made in good faith to competent authorities, falling under Exception 8 to Section 499. (Paras 1-15)
(B) Defamation - Ingredients of offence - The court emphasized that a complaint made in good faith to an authority cannot amount to defamation if it does not meet the necessary legal criteria. (Paras 11-14)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a college principal, alleged defamation by the petitioner, a guest lecturer, who made complaints against him to various authorities, claiming they harmed his reputation. The Magistrate took cognizance based on these allegations.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the Magistrate's order lacked proper application of mind and did not establish the necessary elements of defamation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations constituted defamation under IPC Sections 499 and 500.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a good faith complaint to an authority does not constitute defamation if it does not meet the legal definition of the offence.
Result: Petition allowed; the impugned order was quashed.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of CrPC is filed for assailing the order dated 11.06.2024 passed in UNCR 01/2024 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lateri, District Vidisha whereby the learned Magistrate has taken congnizance for offence punishable under Section 499 and 500 of IPC against the petitioner/accused Manish Bunker.
2. The exposition of facts, giving rise to this petition, is as under:-
(1) Respondent Dr. Surendra Kumar Choksey had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of CrPC inter-alia stating that he is working as the Principal of Government Polytechnic College, Lateri since year 2017. Accused/petitioner Manish Bunker was working as Guest Lecturer in Government Polytechnic College, Lateri since year 2019. Manish Bunker has made written complaint dated 06.10.2023 to the Collector, Vidisha endorsing the copy to the President, National Commission for Scheduled NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21842 Signed by: MONIKA Tribe, New Delhi and the President, State Commission for Schedule Tribe, Bhopal, the Superintendent of Police, Vidisha and District President, AJAKS , Vidisha levelling false allegations against him. The complaint contains false allegations which has harmed the reputation of the complainant. Complainant has suffered mental agony and his reputation amongst his co- workers and students of the college has diminished. The complainant had given the legal notice to the accused. The accused has not tendered any apology, therefore, accused be prosecuted for criminal defamation of the MCRC-28287-2024 complainant.
(2) Learned trial Court examined the complainant under Section 200 of CrPC and his witnesses Shekh Mohammad and Praveen Patel. After hearing the complainant, learned trial Court took cognizance for offence punishable under Section 499 and 500 of IPC against accused Manish Bunker vide impugned order dated 11.06.2024 and directed issuance of summons to secure his presence.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the present petition is filed for quashment of the proceedings consequent upon the impugned order on following grounds:-
(1) The impugned order is illegal and bad in law.
(2) No offence punishable under Section 499 and 500 of IPC is made out against the accused even if the allegations contained in the complaint are considered to be true at their face value.
(3) Learned Magistrate ignored the vital fact that the basic ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC are not made NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21842 Signed by: MONIKA out. The learned Magistrate has not applied judicial mind.
(4) Witnesses Shekh Mohammad and Praveen Patel were posted as MCRC-28287-2024 guest faculty. They were in subordination of the complainant. Learned trial Court fail to consider this aspect of the matter.
(5) The petitioner has made bonafide complaint against the respondent before the Competent Authorities, there was no intention to defame the complainant. The bonafide act of the complainant does not amount to defamation.
(6) The complainant has made malafide allegations in the complaint with intention to remove the petitioner from service.
4. On this grounds, it is requested that the impugned order dated 11.06.2024 passed in UNCR 01/2024 be set aside and the criminal proceeding against the petitioner be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the ground mentioned in the petition contends that bonafide complaint to the Competent Authority cannot be treated as defamation. Learned counsel referred to exception 8 to Section 499 of IPC and submits that the ingredients for defamation as defined in said sections are not made out.
6. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent/complainant contends that the accused has made deliberate false accusation against the complainant which amounts to defamation. In view of the fact that the reputation of the complainant was undermined due to false allegations, learned Magistrate has committed no error in taking cog
